Great biker vs cop video

[scottythepinetree]

Well now I am confused, if you can refuse a request but not an order why don’t they just order you?

 

What is the law of the land? As I understand it there are statute laws (those made by statutory instrument laid before parlement) and common law otherwise known as case law. Both are the law of the land???

 

I have posted a couple of other videos on this thread that explain it a lot better than I can in a few paragraphs. They are pretty long, but very interesting whether you agree with the application or not. It's pretty simple, but it's a deceit that makes it complicated.

 

Basically, he doesn't have the authority to order you to do anything. If he gives you an order you can present him with a bill for fulfilling that order. It's only when a policeman doesn't suss that the person he is talking to has a better understanding of how the system works than he does that it becomes really interesting.

 

The reason for this is that, although he doesn't understand it (and you can't blame him because he isn't taught the true meaning of the law), a judge will understand what you are doing, and will try to put the matter to bed as quickly as he can, ie. throw the case out before it costs the state a fortune, and before it becomes a big enough deal for people to notice. They don't want you to notice.

 

Case Law has nothing to do with it. This is based on precendent between 2 or more parties that have submitted to have their case arbitrated by a judge. The law of the land, or Common Law literally boils down to a person actually causing damage to a person or their property. It does not include engaging in activities that MAY cause damage to another person. The police are well within their rights to try to prevent you causing harm, but have no authority until you have Actually done so.

 

Statutes are "laws" based on Acts which are passed by Parliament. They are written in a very specific legal language, that you are incapable of understanding unless you have studied Law at degree level or above. You don't have to submit to anything you don't understand, so why would you?

 

I'm not absolutely sure who discovered this, but there is growing movement of people who call themselves Freemen who use this information at every oppurtunity and believe it or not some of them are very popular with the more Senior members of the Police Forces of their respective countries. The reason being, if you ask a decent Policeman if he joined to a) help people or b) collect revenue, you can pretty much guess what the answer will be. We won't lower ourselves to aknowledging those who answer c) to give people a good slap every now and then.

 

Once a decent but jaded Police Officer has had the time to cool down and think about it, they realise that if more people understood the way the law works (the truth of it) that they don't have to be the big bad copper anymore. They can now go back to doing what they are supposed to do - help people who need help.

[b101uk]

a lot of you seam to accept the fact he went threw a red light simply because a policeman said so, that is precisely the attitude and why some element of the police act as they do and what they rely on in minor cases that come before the courts.

 

There are many ways at busy junctions with traffic lights to go past a light on green but be held up within the junction so the light behind you changes to red then as the blockage clears of “larger vehicles” for you then to be seen as going threw a red light when in fact you didn’t.

 

If you know you didn’t go threw a red light yet were getting stopped for it then you would act in a similar way, I know I would because I have first hand court experience of how much police will lie to try and cover there backs and hide there own actions, if a policeman has a problem with you having a camera then he has something to hide

[Taupotreeman]

So like an eejit I didn't watch the whole vid thinking it was just another numpty cop trying to be the big I am as per usual. Having followed the thread I figured I'd better watch the rest of the vid just in case there's something I can use to get me out of a pickle sometime (something I frequently found myself in up until a couple of years ago) and I find the video is now private. Any reason as to why?

[treequip]

a lot of you seam to accept the fact he went threw a red light simply because a policeman said so.........

 

I did give that a little thought and came to the conclusion that while biker boy had plenty to say he never said "You are mistaken I didn’t do that"

[treequip]

I have posted a couple of other videos on this thread that explain it a lot better than I can in a few paragraphs. They are pretty long, but very interesting whether you agree with the application or not. It's pretty simple, but it's a deceit that makes it complicated.

 

Basically, he doesn't have the authority to order you to do anything. If he gives you an order you can present him with a bill for fulfilling that order. It's only when a policeman doesn't suss that the person he is talking to has a better understanding of how the system works than he does that it becomes really interesting.

 

The reason for this is that, although he doesn't understand it (and you can't blame him because he isn't taught the true meaning of the law), a judge will understand what you are doing, and will try to put the matter to bed as quickly as he can, ie. throw the case out before it costs the state a fortune, and before it becomes a big enough deal for people to notice. They don't want you to notice.

 

Case Law has nothing to do with it. This is based on precendent between 2 or more parties that have submitted to have their case arbitrated by a judge. The law of the land, or Common Law literally boils down to a person actually causing damage to a person or their property. It does not include engaging in activities that MAY cause damage to another person. The police are well within their rights to try to prevent you causing harm, but have no authority until you have Actually done so.

 

Statutes are "laws" based on Acts which are passed by Parliament. They are written in a very specific legal language, that you are incapable of understanding unless you have studied Law at degree level or above. You don't have to submit to anything you don't understand, so why would you?

 

I'm not absolutely sure who discovered this, but there is growing movement of people who call themselves Freemen who use this information at every oppurtunity and believe it or not some of them are very popular with the more Senior members of the Police Forces of their respective countries. The reason being, if you ask a decent Policeman if he joined to a) help people or b) collect revenue, you can pretty much guess what the answer will be. We won't lower ourselves to aknowledging those who answer c) to give people a good slap every now and then.

 

Once a decent but jaded Police Officer has had the time to cool down and think about it, they realise that if more people understood the way the law works (the truth of it) that they don't have to be the big bad copper anymore. They can now go back to doing what they are supposed to do - help people who need help.

 

See, now I am getting more confused.

 

As far as I can see this Law of the Land thing is a phrase that associates primarily with the Magna Carta

 

Here are a couple of references I found

 

Noun 1. law of the land - a phrase used in the Magna Carta to refer to the then established law of the kingdom (as distinct from Roman or civil law); today it refers to fundamental principles of justice commensurate with due process

 

The phrase law of the land is a legal term, equivalent to the Latin lex terrae (or legem terrae in the accusative case). It refers to all of the laws in force within a country or region, including both statute law and common law.

 

So it’s just a phrase describing all law, statute and common alike and these "freemen" have adopted the term.

 

To be common law a precedent (decision in the courts) is required, there is no requirement for harm although by definition you are unlikely to be in court if you weren’t seeking damages.

 

As far as I am aware if you are accused of a crime you can be arrested to facilitate the investigation of that so refusing to give details will lead to getting arrested, if you still refuse they put you in front of a judge who says “tell me or face contempt”, you provide details or stay in pokey till you do. If that weren’t the case anyone could commit a crime and escape prosecution by simple virtue of not providing details.

 

I seriously doubt that a judge would “throw the case out before it costs the state a fortune”.

[Amelanchier]

Statutes are "laws" based on Acts which are passed by Parliament. They are written in a very specific legal language, that you are incapable of understanding unless you have studied Law at degree level or above. You don't have to submit to anything you don't understand, so why would you?

 

Rubbish. The more you understand the less free you are?!? Sounds like a manifesto for morons.

 

In fact most of what you've posted is deeply flawed. You, (and your sources) seem to be of the opinion that shifting the defnition and altering the meaning of words defeats the spirit of the law. No doubt working backwards from the basic premise that you don't want to be told what to do!

 

Well tough - you live in a society, with other people in it. I note that you use a govt. subsidised internet connection governed by terms of service under one or other of the communications acts to make your complaint. Take with one hand and put the other firmly in your pocket? Classic.

 

One of these 'freemen' (who of course don't want to be completely free) was sent down recently in Norwich for refusing to pay his council tax. He apparently didn't recognise the authority of the officers who arrested him or the courts that sentenced him - he's still in prison. Presumably thankful that the state is obliged by the laws he doesn't recognise to feed him and to curtail the other inmate's freedom to abuse him. Idiot.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Amelanchier
sp.

[scottythepinetree]

Rubbish. The more you understand the less free you are?!? Sounds like a manifesto for morons.

 

No. I said that you don't need to understand their legal language. There is quite a lot that needs to be understood if you want to avoid serious trouble. There are Freemen who are more learned in these methods than I am who will represent you in a lay capacity. Taking what you are told at face value is a manifesto for morons. So once again I invite you to check it out in a little more detail than the few paragraphs I have written.

 

In fact most of what you've posted is deeply flawed. You, (and your sources) seem to be of the opinion that shifting the defnition and altering the meaning of words defeats the spirit of the law. No doubt working backwards from the basic premise that you don't want to be told what to do!

 

Most of what I have posted has been an attempt at a quick summary of the facts. It's been a while since I heard about it and while I don't agree with every aspect of its application, I still find it very interesting. As do a number of senior policemen I have discussed the principle with.

 

Well tough - you live in a society, with other people in it. I note that you use a govt. subsidised internet connection governed by terms of service under one or other of the communications acts to make your complaint.

 

My internet connection is by no means subsidised. Under EU anti monopoly laws Eircom has been a private company since 1999.

 

One of these 'freemen' (who of course don't want to be completely free) was sent down recently in Norwich for refusing to pay his council tax. He apparently didn't recognise the authority of the officers who arrested him or the courts that sentenced him - he's still in prison. Presumably thankful that the state is obliged by the laws he doesn't recognise to feed him and to curtail the other inmate's freedom to abuse him. Idiot.

 

There is a very specific method to be followed, if you step out of this method once, not only are you now liable for the original offence, but you have made them very angry. Your lay advisor better be very good. However for this one case that went a bit pear shaped there are dozens more that went pretty well.:

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6Zc2_CEw4I&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Freeman in court fighting U.K. Council Tax 1 of 2[/ame]

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ0X799Mpgc&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Freeman in court fighting U.K. Council Tax 2 of 2[/ame]

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmfyhDSXHFk&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - English Freeman Standing In Court - Gloucester Court 29th Jan 2010 - Part 1[/ame]

 

If you are interested in reading up more about it type "legal lawful difference" into google and follow the links. Some really interesting stuff in there.

Edited April 1, 2011 by scottythepinetree

[Amelanchier]

No. I said that you don't need to understand their legal language.

 

No. That might be what you meant, but it's not what you said. You said;

 

Statutes are "laws" based on Acts which are passed by Parliament. They are written in a very specific legal language, that you are incapable of understanding unless you have studied Law at degree level or above. You don't have to submit to anything you don't understand, so why would you?

 

It is not clear that the content of the latter sentence was directed at a single element of the former. The enitity being discussed is 'statutes' not the legal language. You would not have to submit to the language (which is the mode of communication), but you may have to submit to the staute. If you meant something different then that's fine.

 

Taking what you are told at face value is a manifesto for morons. So once again I invite you to check it out in a little more detail than the few paragraphs I have written.

 

I have thanks. I understand the principles involved and I disagree with them. My opinion is formed on a broader base than your posts and a couple of youtube clips - otherwise, as you say, I would be a moron.

 

Most of what I have posted has been an attempt at a quick summary of the facts. It's been a while since I heard about it and while I don't agree with every aspect of its application, I still find it very interesting. As do a number of senior policemen I have discussed the principle with.

 

I agree that the forum is an imperfect means of discussion when people are at the periphery of a big subject and I don't for one minute hold you responsible for that.

 

Aside from the technical issues regarding the legal status of statutes, my issue with this lies with the principle of social contract and the deliberate redefinition of legal terms (which are admittedly complex). Attempting to rid oneself of the legislation put in place by democratically (which is course are Churchills least worst form) elected govt. so that you can no longer be dictated to by 'the man' breaks the social contract (i.e., that the individual will give up a portion of his/her freedom and autonomy in return for protection and support from the state). IMO if you want out of the contract you lose the right to claim the benefits (and may even expect a punitative reponse).

 

If you don't want to pay your council tax then you can't use the roads, schools, libraries, public open spaces that are created and maintained by the taxes of others. If you don't recognise the constitutional powers of parliament or the police then why should you recieve their protection from harm, poverty or illness? Refuse to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the EU (which exists for better or worse) and wave goodbye to the EU convention on human rights. Break the contract and get left in the cold. There is no middle ground, you can opt out of citizenship at any time by leaving the country.

 

Its telling that the freemen claim these 'freedoms' for particular purposes - these people are not pushing for the improvement of society or campaigning for the underprivileged, they are trying to avoid parking tickets, tax bills and speeding fines. Individualism of the worst kind.

 

Now there is a world of difference between the 'freemen' stance and an informed citizen who knows their rights and I would support the education of the population in that respect. But, with the proviso that the legal framework is understood in the context of our social contract.

 

My internet connection is by no means subsidised. Under EU anti monopoly laws Eircom has been a private company since 1999.

 

So in posting on this forum you used a communications network that was installed and maintained privately by Eircom in its entirety since its inception?

Edited April 2, 2011 by Amelanchier
sp.

[Amelanchier]

So it’s just a phrase describing all law, statute and common alike and these "freemen" have adopted the term.

 

To be common law a precedent (decision in the courts) is required, there is no requirement for harm although by definition you are unlikely to be in court if you weren’t seeking damages.

 

Freemen hark to an age before parliament (and pre-statute) because they consider the current system to be unelected and not 'of the people' (insert reference to the interference of the Pope, masons, the illuminati or Zionist new world order). They would prefer us to be governed by a series of laws made by unelected medieval kings and barons which can be subsequently modified by unelected magistrates...